Why Journalism Matters
The bravery of the Outlaw Ocean Project vs China's powerful dominance of world fishing. Are carbon offsets helping save the planet or just covering us all in climate-warming greenwash?
5 minute read
The great ocean investigators reveal how China has become the Seafood Superpower through crime and human rights abuses
“…this realm is home to a variety of urgent concerns that go largely overlooked by most news outlets because it is too costly, too dangerous and too time consuming to report on them.”
One of the inspiring aspects of producing the Why Journalism Matters newsletter is discovering journalists and organisations that take on groundbreaking investigations and campaigns which would not have come about without their courage, determination and belief in justice.
The Outlaw Ocean Project is certainly one of the most impressive of these outlets. Since starting up in 2019 it has been headquartered in Washington, DC but its reporting is concentrated on the High Seas, the two thirds of our planet that is the ocean. Anyone with even a passing interest in the sea world will find it difficult not to cast their attention adrift on the Outlaw Ocean Project (OOP) website.
Although the oceans play a dominant role in life on earth they attract relatively little attention from the news media, as the OOP explains on their About page.
“More than 50 million people work offshore. Roughly 80 percent of the goods we consume reach us by way of the sea. Half the air we breathe comes from the oceans. And yet, this realm is home to a variety of urgent concerns that go largely overlooked by most news outlets because it is too costly, too dangerous and too time consuming to report on them.
“These concerns include the murder of stowaways, arms trafficking, illegal fishing, pollution, dumping, drilling and human slavery on fishing ships. The organisation was founded and is directed by Ian Urbina, who produced an award-winning series in 2015 in The New York Times and a subsequent best-selling book in 2019.
Distinct journalism
“The Outlaw Ocean Project’s journalism is distinct not just in its focus, but also in how the reporting is conducted and distributed. Most of the stories are reported at least partially at sea. In the United States, the non-profit publishes its stories in various news outlets, including the New Yorker, NBC News, The Atlantic and The Washington Post. The reporting is also translated into a half dozen languages and further disseminated abroad in partnership with dozens of foreign newspapers, magazines, radio and television venues.”
Its website reveals a wide portfolio of stories such as how ocean going cruisers are illegally dumping oil waste into the ocean out of the sight of regulating authorities, and the story of Sealand a ‘micronation’ built on a metal platform arrayed over two concrete towers just a few miles off the coast of England. Plus you’ll find the shocking story about a mass murder at sea that would have never come to light without their investigative efforts.
For the past four years the OOP has been pursuing a worldwide and comprehensive investigation into the power and illegal activities of the Chinese fishing fleet which has become the largest distance-fishing fleet in the world. This exhaustive report was published in co-operation with the New Yorker magazine.
This examination (written by executive editor Ian Urbina) displays the insight, bravery, collaboration with multiple sources and exhaustive attention to detail that characterises the best of investigative journalism. It is a multimedia presentation that deserves to be widely read and watched and is never less than compelling.
China’s rise to dominance as a maritime nation is ‘fueled by the world’s growing and insatiable appetite for seafood’.
And China’s reach across the high seas is signalled by the growth of its distant-water fishing fleet that boasts as many as 6,500 ships, more than double the size of its closest competitor.
Wild protein
A summary of the report’s findings reveals “….Seafood is the world’s last major source of wild protein and the largest globally traded food commodity by value. Western political analysts say that having just one country controlling this precious resource creates a precarious power imbalance. They warn that China is expanding its maritime reach in ways that are undermining food security, especially in poorer countries, and eroding international law.
“ Frequent illegal incursions by these ships into other nations’ waters are heightening military tensions. American lawmakers are concerned because the U.S., which is in a trade war with China, is also the world’s largest importer of seafood.
“The Chinese government and western seafood companies often dismiss illegality in the fishing industry as an isolated problem. But the investigation revealed a wide pattern: Almost half of the Chinese squid fleet, 357 of the 751 ships studied, were tied to human-rights or environmental violations.
“The investigation identified at least 119 ships with possible human-rights abuses documented since 2013. These abuses included debt bondage, wage withholding, excessive working hours, abandoning crew in port, forced and captive labor, beatings of deckhands, passport confiscation, prohibiting timely access to medical care, and deaths from neglect or violence.
“More than 100 Chinese squid ships were found to have fished illegally, including by targeting protected species, operating without a license, and dumping excess fish into the sea. The investigation revealed other environmental or fishing-specific crimes and risk indicators, including Chinese ships illegally entering the waters of other countries…
“About 80 percent of seafood consumed in the U.S. is caught or processed abroad, with China as its biggest supplier. The investigation found that many of the ships associated with human rights or environmental abuses deliver catch to processing plants that supply over 160 U.S. companies, including major grocery store chains such as Walmart, Safeway and Kroger, as well as food-service providers such as Sysco and Performance Food Group.
“These problems, on land or at sea, touch a huge variety of brands, restaurants, food-service companies in countries around the world, and much of the seafood industry is implicated.”
Reference
Outlaw Ocean Project: China the Superpower of Seafood
5 minute read
Investigative journalism, carbon offsets and climate change: The story so far
Carbon credits and offsets are not subjects that, on the face of it, set journalists’ blood racing with excitement or anticipation.
But right now they are one of the most important aspects of reporting on climate change because of their crucial interim role in kick starting climate finance that may help curtail the current burning of fossil fuels, and the removal of carbon from the atmosphere.
It’s deemed to be such an important concern for journalistic inquiry that the Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN) has recently published a reporter’s guide for getting to grips with the issue.
The guide was written by Toby McIntosh from GIJN’s resource centre for journalists and an expert on international transparency law and access to freedom of information. The objectives of the guide are to establish what carbon credits and offsets actually are, how to investigate them and how to establish their validity and viability.
So what exactly are carbon offsets?
As the guide explains carbon offsetting is possible when a project that reduces greenhouse gas emissions is turned into a saleable commodity, i.e ‘carbon credits’. These credits may be used by the purchaser to ‘offset’ their own emissions.
Although they can be fairly complicated in practice, the basic concept of carbon offsets is a straightforward one.
Carbon Brief explanation
“Put simply, carbon offsets involve an entity that emits greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere paying for another entity to pollute less.”
That’s the explanation provided by the experts at Carbon Brief, a UK based website which seeks to clarify the science and policy surrounding climate change.
As GIJN’s McIntosh explains: “Start with planting a tree. Because trees absorb and store carbon dioxide (CO2), planting more of them can offset greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the new trees can be quantified, as a carbon credit, and then bought and sold.
“Each carbon credit represents one metric ton of CO2 emissions either avoided or removed from the atmosphere. If another greenhouse gas is involved, such as methane, a “carbon dioxide equivalent” is calculated, based on the global warming potential of the other greenhouse gas.”
There are many types of projects that qualify for creating carbon credits. These include: introducing cleaner cooking stoves, using more sustainable farming techniques, creating more energy with solar and wind power, and preventing methane leaks.
But by far the most popular (and so far the most lucrative) are reforestation projects. These are labelled as REDD+ (Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries plus), are the most common type of offset project. REDD+ projects are based on the assumption that a forest would have been chopped down if it wasn’t protected.
And when it comes to evaluating the value and quality of carbon offset projects is where it all starts to get complicated, leading to disputes and charges of greenwashing against governments and large corporations who find it easier to reach net-zero targets by buying carbon credits than reducing their own carbon emissions—at least in the short to medium term.
Not doing something
McIntosh writes:“Another layer of complexity arises when offset projects are created for not doing something damaging to the environment, such as by protecting a forest. Evaluating this means dealing with questions such as whether the forest really was at risk of being forested.”
“To be a legitimate offset credit, the benefits achieved by such projects need to be “additional,” meaning that the reduction in CO2 emissions would not have happened in the absence of the project. This is known as “additionality.”
“Further, the broader picture needs to be considered. If one forest is saved, will that increase logging in another forest? This is referred to as “leakage.” These concepts need to be explained clearly in context.”
The selling of carbon credits is often between governments and entities in the global south who are not heavily industrialised (the sellers) and governments and big corporations based in the global north who produce large carbon eissions (the buyers.)
Most of these transactions are handled through what’s called the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM)which is unregulated and therefore can be subject to abuse. In fact, the pressure to make it work often results from the efforts made by investigative journalists and environmental campaigners who try to keep tabs on what happens to the money and the people affected. (See story below.)
Where most people in the developed world come across carbon offsets are in situations where they are taking a commercial airline flight. Very often you are given the opportunity to buy an ‘offset’ equivalent ot the value of your share of the jet fuel burnt during your flight, in theory neutralising the impact on the climate.
Profit motive
But as McIntosh explains: “You likely will buy it from an intermediary, a carbon credit reseller, but the offset project likely was created by another party, such as the person/entity who planted the trees or was paid to plant the trees. Note: Most developers of offset projects have a profit motive. While offsets may be created anywhere, most originate in the developing world.”
“Critics are concerned that corporations — including those in the fossil fuel industry — are using carbon credits to avoid reducing their own emissions. In other words, carbon offsets can involve paying others in order to justify business as usual. This perspective is outlined in a report on corporate “greenwashing” by NBC, done in partnership with the Pulitzer Center’s Rainforest Investigations Network.”
Unsurprisingly the VCM, although uncertain at times, is a growing market. In 2021 it was estimated at UD$2 billion, but by 2030 it could be worth anywhere between US$10-$40 billion. However, because this market is unregulated there is little price transparency and sales often involve non-disclosure clauses.
“Carbon offset projects are certified by carbon ‘registries’. One dominant registry, Verra, and three others make up the majority of the market. The registries use quantitative methodologies, sometimes called protocols, to validate the offsets brought to them.
“The extent to which these methodologies are valid is a key point of controversy and one subject for journalists to investigate. For example, a Guardian investigation in early 2023 concluded that more than 90% of the “forest-related projects validated by Verra did not represent genuine carbon reductions.” Such critiques have lowered valuations of specific credits and negatively affected the overall marketplace.
As seems more than evident, the operation of the carbon credits and offsets system needs ongoing scrutiny to ensure that it represents both value for money and real progress in the battle against climate change. In the absence of any international supervision with teeth, that scrutiny will only come from investigative journalists and climate campaigners working together
Reference
GIJN Reporter’s Guide to investigating Carbon Offsets
Carbon Brief: can carbon offsets help to tackle climate change?
4 minute read
Human Rights Watch investigation: Carbon Offsets threaten indigenous people in Cambodia
It’s an eyeopener to see how carbon offsets work in practice in different parts of the world. Here we examine a case history in Cambodia, a country which has embraced the concept of earning an income from carbon credits but which, ironically, suffers some of the worst deforestation in the world.
It’s also a reminder that investigative reporting is not the sole province of journalists, but is also an important weapon in the armour of campaigning groups and civil activists who undertake investigations as springboards to achieve their social objectives.
One of those NGOs in the vanguard of this kind of research is Human Rights Watch an international charity headquartered in Washington, DC but with offices spread around the world. HRW explains its purpose and how it undertakes research on its website.
“Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice.
National parks
“Human Rights Watch conducts regular, systematic investigations of human rights abuses around the world. At any given time we are actively researching, reporting, and advocating for change in more than 90 countries.”
One of HRW’s most recent published investigations focusses on the situation in Cambodia and it reveals that over the past 30 years the Cambodian government has created a series of national parks with little regard for the local communities and indigenous peoples who live in them.
These parks have been used to stage a number of carbon offset projects which ave already generated millions of dollars in income for the government of Cambodia. But there remains serious doubts about the benefits and protections for the indigenous people who live in the project areas, are most dependent on them economically and arguably are the best defenders of their long term sustainability.
The most recent HRW report focusses on the Southern Cardomon REDD+ Project in Koh Kong province, the largest Carbon offset scheme in Cambodia.
But as HRW highlights in their report published on February 28 indigenous tribes such as the Chong people have been sidelined in the development of these carbon offset projects and in some cases have been evicted from farmland that they have cultivated for centuries or have even been arrested or imprisoned for harvesting traditional and sustainable forest products.
HRW reports: “In practice, these large nature reserves have obstructed the recognition and titling of their traditional territories.
“This dynamic has led to a paradoxical situation in which 41 percent of Cambodia’s surface has nature reserve status, but the country boasts one of the highest deforestation rates in the world. Cambodia exemplifies how protected areas that are not community-led fail to benefit either people or nature.”
This alarming situation was borne out by Professor Ida Theilade, an expert in deforestation from the university of Copenhagen. She told the Cambodian Journalists Alliance Association in an email: “Sadly, the record of the Ministry of Environment has deteriorated very fast over the past 2-3 years. The ban and harassment of local forest patrols has led to an increase in illegal logging in Prey Lang and Preah Rokar Wildlife Sanctuaries.” he said.
It is estimated that 2,000 hectares of forest have disappeared between 2018 and 2020 alone.
Human Rights Watch discovered that the REDD+ project: “conducted activities for 31 months before consulting Indigenous Chong people living in the area, violating their right to free, prior, and informed consent for the project. Project activities during those 31 months included crucial decisions on the management of more than half a million hectares of land, such as incorporating eight Indigenous Chong villages into a national park.”
In addition that although The REDD+ project has a fianncial agreement with the Cambodian Environment Ministry, Koh Hong provicial government and the the Wildlife Alliance who manage the project it does not have a benefit sharing agreement with any of the indigenous communities.
“They [Wildlife Alliance] have no concern with our Indigenous identity,” said a Chong resident of Chumnoab commune. “They’ve never asked us for permission because from their perspective they already have an agreement with the government.”
Human Rights Watch also documented cases of six families where WA staff together with MOE rangers, and gendarmes, evicted indigenous people from farmland they had cultivated. for centuries.
“ In none of the instances documented was there any indication that residents received alternative farmland, nor humanitarian aid or compensation, with serious impacts for these families’ livelihoods.
Evicted from farmland
In addition, Human Rights Watch documented cases in which three residents who said they were evicted from the farmland were also prosecuted on criminal charges. This occurred without these men having had access to legal counsel. According to HRW these cases led to these men being detained for nine months wihtout trial.
In addition to the criminalisation of farming, Indigenous residents have also faced arrest and detention for collecting sustainable forest products that do not lead to deforestation or forest degradation.
In response to HRW’s investigation Verra, the international body that issues international carbon credit certificates has suspended issuance of these certificates pending the outcome of a review into how the project is being managed and the involvement of the indigenous tribes involved.
Reference
Human Rights Watch Cambodian report
Guardian report on value of Carbon offsets
It’s free to subscribe and you can cancel anytime, so give it a try!
Contact us on greatjournalismwjm@gmail.com
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter
facebook.com/whyjournalism matters
X-twitter @JournalismWhy
Et maintenant disponible en français!